A Future Single-Service Military vs Branches of Service?

No- you do understand the differences of equipment between branches and the way the troops are employed? Can you see USN MA's collecting /guarding POWs, or running convoy protection inland? USMC uses a whole different breed of aviation (rotary/fixed wing) Each service designed their branches to match the Services way of deploying and their equipment was done the same way- there is a big difference between an Army Bradley/Stryker and the USMC LAV's

All of this has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. From a military standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Can you imagine the amount of training required to bring sailors to soldiering, soldiers to the sailing, Marines to the Army or the opposite? Each service has specific needs which are trained in recruits and new officers, which are merely confusing to sister service people.

NO!!!

So the military is already structured appropriately. You have the Joint Staff for operational/combat/contingency control and the branches, which are the administrative structure. This is very similar to matrixed IT organizations where there are teams responsible for the care and training of employees, with projects as the "combat" organizations -- task organized based on the project's needs. I avoided using the expression "operations" because those are the standard business operations of the business.

I totally disagree with a one service. The Air Force broke away from the Army in 1947. The Navy and Marine are separated for there own reasons. We all may have similar training but each branch teaches differently and has their own traditipns. Would I want to be on a ship no thanks. I prefer land.

My job (PAO) is the same in all branches. So, it would literally would have zero impact on us. My current job with AFN is ran by a majority of civilians (Defense Media Activity) and my chain of command, which consist of civilian, Navy, Army and Air Force, is only five people between myself, a SFC/E7, and the Secretary of Defense. I have also been in a CJTF unit and we all did the same thing there while working with all the branches and coalition in one office. So, it might not be as bad as it sounds. However, I would never see that happening just based on service pride alone.

Kind of like there is one variant of MRAP because they all have the same function..........Oh wait a minute....

They are working on making a Joint Engineering Command JECOM just like SOCOM. They will still be in there service branch but the JCOM will have command and control and mission choices for assigning what Engineer units and or service units will provide support for Combatant commanders. The example would be and is being used now. Seabees and Red Horse support SOTF and Civil Humanitarian Missions. Heavy Engineers and Combat Engineers will fill the larger combat Engineering areas and maneuver combat missions. This will also give them the advantage to task tailor Engineering missions. This could be the example for other special skill sets. The funding would come from the branches but would be managed by the JECOM. This will also eliminate redundancies in mission and skill sets. All Engineers already go to Joint Schools. The only force that does not want to bye in is USMC.

I'm sorry but no you mentioned military police, well each of the branches military police are trained completely different. I am saying from experience working together is a nightmare.

Just a thought, but this doesn't seem to be working all that well for our Canadian friends. I don't care for the idea.